" Russell wrote back: (here I paraphrase for I lost part of your answer)
that
>one needed to "want" the answer that Christianity was true. You also went
>on to say that " And you know what? That's fine, as long as one doesn't
>pretend that this answer was arrived at entirely by objective, logical
>means. "
>--------------------
>I see I was unclear in my last post. Apologies. . Let me rephrase it.. I
>will capitalize to show wording changes.
>
>"The thing one brings to it is a willimgness to commit to the answer,
>WHATEVER THAT ANSWER MAY BE. More specifically, a willingness to commit to
>the answer that you "want," I.E. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
Russell responded:
"I know that that's what you said. And my point is that my willingness to
commit to the answer, whatever that answer may be, has led me to atheism.
I just have seen absolutely no reason to believe that there is a God of
any sort. Indeed, everything I have seen strongly indicates that the human
species is on its own in a universe indifferent to our existence."
And that's a fair answer, Russell. I know you are wrong, of course, but
with the data and reasoning you have (so far) it is quite likely that this
answer is the only intellectually satisfying one for you.
I used the word "know" in the above very deliberately. It is not "feel,"
or "think," or "hope," or even "hold to be very probable." I use it
only because I have had a personal encounter with God. More
than one, BTW, but one is sufficient.
Again, that's private knowledge; not "scientific" and certainly not
repeatable.
Should you have such an encounter, you will know what I'm talking about.
Apparently, such an encounter is not a necessity to be a Christian.
But it helps.
You added the comment (about the above):
"This is exactly what I have been saying all along. It is a personal,
subjective
thing."
We agree. All I am adding is that this experience IS available to anyone.
Your new close is also good. Something like it was
in an index to computer book we wrote years ago -- about 1957 or so.
Stop, dynamic. See dynamic stop
Dynamic stop: See Stop, dynamic
A "dynamic stop" in those days was a transfer instruction
to a location (on an IBM 650) where a transfer instruction
pointing back was located. The machine went into a very
tight endless loop. In those days, that was high-tech. <G>
Peace
Burgy